posted on August 28, 2012 16:36
By Darrell Castle
There has been much controversy over rule changes initially passed by the Rules Committee of the Republican National Committee at the Republican National Convention now ongoing in Tampa, Florida. The new rules would have given the presidential nominee veto power over any delegates selected by the normal selection process in their states.
The republican delegates have always been pledged to support the winner of their state’s primary; but they have until now been free to vote their consciences on other things, such as on the Rules and Platform Committees. Should the apparent nominee have the power to select or reject lawfully chosen delegates, he would then have control of the entire process and, in effect, he and a few of those at the top of the party would hold dictatorial power.
My understanding at the time of this writing is that this conflict - which would have inevitably led to the first fight on the floor of a Republican Convention since 1972 - has been averted, and a compromise has been reached.
There have been other controversies in the republication nomination process, however, such as those surrounding the Ron Paul delegates that were duly chosen in many states and then rejected through what many in the Republican Party believe to be unlawful means. Party leadership cannot admit this occurred, because to do so might be tantamount to admitting to election fraud.
There is one other controversy with which I am personally acquainted: the efforts by republicans in various states to keep other parties like the Constitution and Libertarian Parties off the ballot. In Pennsylvania for example, many more signatures were delivered to state authorities than the number necessary to secure ballot access for the Constitution Party; but republicans objected to the signatures. To contest the objections would have cost perhaps $100,000; and under Pennsylvania’s loser pays law, had the Constitution Party lost the battle it would have been responsible for paying that fee from funds it did not have. Similar tactics have been used in other states with which I am personally acquainted but am not at liberty to discuss because I am co-counsel in a lawsuit still ongoing.
Republican Party leaders defend these tactics as being necessary to save the republic. These people believe that if President Obama is reelected the nation will not survive for another four years and therefore any tactic, lawful or unlawful, is justified. They say, "We will save our country from the legitimate democratic process if we have to destroy the democratic process to do it."
The unethical and sometimes unlawful tactics employed by the Republican Party leadership have had the effect of disenfranchising many members of the American voting public; and I trust these voters are outraged by it.
There is a good side to the tactics that I have described, of course, and that is that they have finally revealed by their own hands who and what these republicans really are.
The Grand Old Party of ethics and fair dealing, the party of high moral values, freedom, and life, is actually the Party of Royalists and Monarchists. These power grabs are a move toward centralization of power in the hands of a few at the expense of the many; but they do not care because they are saving their country from a bad leader.
This excuse of necessity is the tyrant's call and has been used by tyrants for centuries. Finally though, the Republican Party leadership has allowed us, the general voting American public, a clear look at their rotten and decayed core. I pray that we will act accordingly when and if we vote in November and in future elections.
For those who might agree with me, the Constitution Party would welcome you. Please consider my words in November.